Video summary
The discussion begins with a critique of indirect communication, specifically addressing why people often say things like "leave me alone" when they actually want attention or connection. The speakers argue that decoding these shadow sentences is an unnecessary game that requires excessive effort and leads to misunderstanding; instead, being straightforward should be viewed as a skill that can be developed but is less common among younger generations who grew up with different social norms. Personal anecdotes illustrate this struggle, such as the speaker's own history of using indirect signals in college because they felt unsafe expressing true feelings directly. The consensus suggests that while obfuscation might serve as a self-protective mechanism similar to flirting—where one makes others prove their care before revealing vulnerability—it ultimately hinders genuine connection and requires less energy than trying to guess what someone means. The conversation then shifts to the cultural and evolutionary roots of indirect aggression, particularly regarding gender differences in communication styles. The speakers note that women have historically been penalized more severely for open emotional expression, a trait transmitted across generations even if societal rules are changing today. Furthermore, social media platforms often reinforce these behaviors by teaching users specific scripts on how to manipulate interactions without revealing true intent. A poignant example involving a seven-year-old girl reveals the psychological logic behind this behavior: she cries when sad because her sister hugs her, but acts angry and pushes people away when upset because that is what gets attention in her environment. This highlights how early social conditioning can lead adults into patterns of passive aggression where they deny others the opportunity to provide genuine support by framing their needs as something unwanted or confusing. A significant portion of the dialogue addresses the nature and prevalence of indirect versus direct aggression, challenging historical stereotypes that labeled men as physically aggressive and women as merely passively so. Recent research cited in the interview indicates that while both genders engage in indirect aggression at similar levels, men are statistically more likely to use physical violence across the board. The speakers explain that women tend toward passive or indirect aggression because it is a safer outlet; direct physical retaliation from a woman against a man carries higher evolutionary risks due to potential lethal force and societal consequences. Additionally, there appears to be greater female-to-female aggression compared to interactions with men, likely driven by intersexual competition where the risk of severe physical repercussion is lower among peers who are similarly sized or valued evolutionarily. To illustrate the extreme nature of this dynamic, the speakers recount a story about an Amazonian tribe where women engaged in complex social traps involving food parcels and accusations of poisoning to eliminate rivals without direct violence. The speaker contrasts this with what would happen if men attempted similar tactics, suggesting that male equivalents would likely result in immediate physical retaliation like throwing rocks rather than intricate psychological games. This anecdote underscores the fascination and disparity surrounding female intrasexual competition, a topic often avoided online but central to evolutionary psychology studies. Despite finding these dynamics endlessly interesting academically, the speaker admits feeling out of touch with modern internet reactions that get angry when such principles are discussed openly, highlighting how deeply ingrained yet misunderstood these social mechanisms remain in contemporary culture. The episode concludes by emphasizing the importance of learning direct communication skills to avoid being invalidated or trapped in cycles of passive aggression where one's needs cannot be met because they were never clearly stated. The speakers advocate for a shift away from "speaking in code" toward honest expression, noting that while it is difficult and requires picking spots carefully, revealing true feelings directly allows others to respond appropriately without guessing games. Ultimately, the argument posits that developing the ability to say exactly what one means—such as admitting sadness or fear—is not only more efficient but also fosters healthier relationships where individuals do not have to prove their worth through indirect tests of loyalty or care.
Read the full video transcript
I saw you react to a video. If I tell
you to leave me alone and you leave me
alone, you're legit dead to me. Right.
What do you think of that?
I
In some ways it it depends,
uh but in general, I don't think that's
a very fun game. I don't you know, I
don't like playing that game where you
have to guess at what people mean. It's
like don't talk to me means talk to me.
I don't know about you. I'm not good at
decoding those kinds of signals
personally.
How how how how are you supposed to
know? So, yeah, I I think being
straightforward weirdly has to be
it's a skill that can be developed and
younger people are less likely to have
that skill. I remember when I was
younger
in college especially
I didn't know how to communicate how I
was really feeling to people and I also
didn't know if it was safe to do that.
And so you use this kind of like angle
to get there. And they go you you know,
I'm I'm looking sad today. You know, I
want to make sure I want somebody to
notice and I'm looking sad today. And
they go, "Oh, you look sad today. Are
you sad?" And I go, "No. Why do you
ask?"
>> [laughter]
>> Cuz I want them to ask more. I want them
to dig deeper, you know? So, I was so
close
but not quite there. And that is odd to
me that we would need to teach people to
be straightforward. And yet here we are.
Because there's more effort needed to
obfuscate the thing that we actually
want. Right.
It's like what are you doing? Why are
you playing that game? And I think in
many ways it's self-protective. It's
kind of like flirting but with your
emotions. Like making them prove that
they care about me enough to dig deeper.
And yet I don't It doesn't require me to
put myself out there. I don't have to It
is hard to say. Like if I say to you,
"Hey Chris, I'm feeling sad today. I
don't know like this interview. I don't
I don't know how it's going to go."
You can you imagine if I had started
that way? You'd have been like, "Oh,
okay."
You know, that So, you have to pick your
spots. But at the same time, if you are
in fact feeling sad, which I'm not by
the way, but there there this is great.
But there is a
uh there's a way to reveal that that's
more socially appropriate. And I think
that's where the skill is really um
learnable. Why do women say things like
leave me alone, but actually mean the
opposite?
How should I know? Now,
uh
I So, I think it can be for a variety of
reasons. We could look at it through a
cultural lens.
And I think culturally women have been
more penalized
uh for sharing openly
than men have
historically. I think today, you know,
it could go either way. Maybe men are
even being penalized more. But I think
that's one lens of explanation that
people sometimes use is that women have
have had to be very careful on how they
communicate. And that has been
transmitted across time to women today,
even if it's not as true as it used to
be. So, okay. So, that's that's maybe
one lens.
Another is that truly social media
communication teaches them to do it. And
so, that is it's like, "Hey ladies, this
is what you have to do. Never tell a guy
X. Instead, do ABC."
And
other times it can just be learning. You
know, you learn over time like when
you're in fifth grade
that if you pretend to be sad around a
boy, he'll pay extra attention to you.
>> Mhm.
And then you never learn a better skill.
Well, you're still doing that when
you're 30, and now people are dealing
with it
you know, on when you're trying to
connect with them on Hinge or whatever.
>> Mhm. Mhm.
>> [snorts]
>> I uh
Joe Hudson, friend of mine, his daughter
was 7 years old, crying in the bathtub,
and she'd been crying in there quite
regularly over the last couple of weeks.
And he went in, and the way that she was
crying sounded kind of angry at the same
time. He said, "Hey, you
You know when you're crying, how how
often are you sad, and how often are you
pissed off?
She said,
"Pissed off." So I said, "Well, why
why are you crying if you're if you're
angry?" She said, "Well,
when I'm angry, everyone runs away, but
when I cry, my sister comes and gives me
a hug."
Exactly.
So there is this
>> Exactly.
It's not just the message, it's the way
that that's received. And uh
yeah, I I think
it's a difficult one. I
Putting us Learning direct
communication, or not speaking in shadow
sentences, right? Not Right. pointing in
the direction of the thing that you
mean, but saying it in a way where you
don't plant what you want, so that it
can't be denied,
so that you can't ever be invalidated,
but you also deny the person the
opportunity of actually giving you what
it is that you want. They It's the kind
of the same as telling somebody to hit
the bull's-eye on a dartboard, but
they've got to have their eyes closed.
Right. Uh or you're moving it like this
all the time. Uh
Yeah, okay. I guess passive aggression
It's It's shadow sentences stuff is
similar to passive aggression. What's
the role of passive aggression in
relationships? You know, why it comes
about? Like what what what its role is?
Yeah, absolutely. So there Sometimes
researchers will call it indirect
aggression as well. You know, there's
multiple names depending on which angle
in the literature you you're taking.
And that too is one that has been
debated and kind of misunderstood over
time. It used to be thought that men
were aggressive aggressive, and then
women were passive aggressive or
indirectly aggressive.
And what more recent kind of recent
research has shown is that men are just
more aggressive across the board.
>> [laughter]
>> And
>> Including indirectly? Yes. Yeah, yeah.
So they have maybe equal levels of women
with indirect, but then when you add or
maybe even a little less, but then when
you add aggression aggression, it's
like, no, guys are in fact more
aggressive. But women, I think, are more
Uh
I wouldn't say it's
It's more socially appropriate for women
to be indirectly aggressive typically,
and it's also less dangerous. So, think
about it this way. If you say to a
buddy, you know, you're fighting and you
take a swing at him,
you're probably going to hold your own
at worst. You personally, I mean. You're
a big guy, you know? You're going to
you're going to uh you're going to hold
hold your own at worst. If a woman takes
a swing at her guy friend
in anger,
that's very dangerous. And so, as a
result, women tend to use passive
aggression or indirect aggression a bit
more simply because it's a it's a safer
outlet. And I think I you know, this is
not my area of specialization, but I
think
there's some evidence that shows that
when women
are dealing with other women, they're a
lot more likely to be aggressive
aggressive than to be
than if they were dealing with men.
Because the potential physical
repercussion coming back to them, given
that they're more fragile and more
valuable evolutionarily, they're less
likely they're less likely to have a
lethal force be applied because the
imbalance just isn't there. Correct. I'd
have to go back and check on that. I'm
almost It totally makes makes makes
makes total sense. I mean, yeah.
Female intersexual competition is
the
least popular on the internet, most
fascinating It's the It's got the
biggest disparity between um how much
you're allowed to talk about it how
little you're allowed to talk about it
and how fascinating it is to study.
Right. It is [ __ ] endlessly
interesting. You know, the Joyce
Bensons, the Candace Blakes, the Corry
Clarks, the the [ __ ] Christina Hoff
Summers, the Tracy Vian Courts with Mean
Girl. Like, all of this stuff is so
[ __ ] sick. I remember Rob Henderson
told me this story. Maybe it was Buzz.
Um a
woman had been kidnapped
by an Amazonian tribe while she was on a
tour,
and she'd been taken into the the the
local uh tribe after she'd been sort of
taken from her from her touring group.
And when she was there, um a little boy
had come up and given her a little
parcel. Given her a parcel that had some
food in it. And uh no, sorry. One of the
women had come up I yeah, one of the
boys had come up given her a parcel that
had some food in it. And uh it was you
can eat this and she smelled it and it
it sort of smelled bad, so she didn't
want to. And then she went and sort of
laid it down somewhere and didn't bother
eating it. And then a little bit later
in the day, one of the kids fell super
ill.
Mhm. And when asked,
"What's happened? Why are you ill?" She
said, "Oh, that woman put this thing
down near me and I went over and ate
it."
And they chased her through the jungle.
"You just tried to poison one of these
children." What it turned out had
happened was that some of the other
women
had given the parcel to a child to give
to her knowing that she would either eat
it and get sick or put it down and then
they could accuse her of it. And I'm
like, It's a trap. "Do you understand
just how stupid the male equivalent of
that would be?
Like if it was a guy that had come in
and the guys didn't like him, they would
have like man take rock That's literally
what I was going to say.
>> man throw rock at guy.
>> Like and there's this
seven-step inception thing. Christopher
Nolan's designed it. Like you know, it's
got it's got redundancies built in. If
she doesn't do it, she'll give it to
someone and then it'll hurt them and
then we can say that she I'm like, I am
so glad that I'm not a woman. I'm
endlessly glad that I'm not a woman for
that reason. I could not navigate that
situation at all. Well, and I I was
shocked. So, I made I think I made one
or two posts on intrasexual competition
recently and I thought people might find
it to be mildly interesting. I find it
to be very interesting, you know. It's
one of the things we studied in in grad
school a bit. And
I made this post and I started taking
shots from all over the place. It's like
what
What you guys have a problem with this?
What? I I thought it was just this
well-accepted principle. That's why I
almost didn't post about it. I I'm out
of touch. I don't know what people don't
know. And
apparently A, people don't know about
this and B, when they find out they get
real mad.
In other news, Shopify powers 10% of all
e-commerce companies in the United
States. They are the driving force
behind Jim Shark, Skims, Alo, and New
Tonic, which is why I partnered with
them because when it comes to converting
browsers into buyers, they are best in
class. Their checkout is 36% better on
average compared to other leading
commerce platforms. And with Shop Pay,
you can boost conversions by up to 50%.
They've got award-winning support there
to help you every step of the way. Look,
you are not going into business to learn
how to code or build a website or do
back-end inventory management. Shopify
takes care of all of that and allows you
to focus on the job that you came here
to do, which is designing and selling an
awesome product. Upgrade your business
and get the same checkout that I use
with New Tonic on Shopify. Right now,
you can sign up for a $1 per month trial
period by going to the link in the
description below or heading to
shopify.com/modernwisdom.
All lowercase. That's
shopify.com/modernwisdom
to upgrade your selling today.
Congratulations for making it to the end
of the clip. Your brain has not been
fried by Tik Tok.
Watch the full episode here.